owp_run_tests

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'forwards' an execution and requires a signed AgentRequest in the payload. It does not disclose whether this operation is mutating (e.g., writes to the ledger), whether it blocks or returns immediately, what error conditions exist, or what happens on the coordinator side. This is a significant gap for a test-execution tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose in a single sentence, followed by a compact Arg list that adds necessary parameter details without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks broader context about when to use this tool, side effects, or interaction with other tools (e.g., needing to sign a payload first). It is adequate for a simple forwarding operation but offers no guidance on constructing a valid payload or handling failures, leaving the agent to infer these aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'ledger' as 'Path to the SQLite ledger file' and 'payload' as a 'JSON string' with the specific requirement to include the signed AgentRequest and typed arguments. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema field names and types, though the payload format could be more detailed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Forward a run-tests execution to the ledger coordinator.' The verb 'Forward' plus the specific resource ('run-tests execution') and target ('ledger coordinator') leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (key generation, signing, verification, etc.), none of which perform execution forwarding.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is used to execute tests through the ledger coordinator. No alternative tools are mentioned, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions provided, but the context makes the usage reasonable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.